Alpha +3 = UK1 Factory in EGY breaks the game?

@Clyde85:

I’ve been thinking about it and I think that since a minor IC is only 12IPCs it might be better to place it on UK1. Britian has a bit more flexability with its starting economy, so it could probably afford to spend the 12 IPC on the IC in Egypt, if it spends the rest of its economy on defense in London

By not using the extra aa units in uk to prepare your defences, you actually are reverting back to alpha 2 defences for sealion.  Actually they are worse because the aa guns don’t get a roll on defence.
4 less infantry =1 ic.  Wich means 4 less 2 s on defence

@Peck:

@Clyde85:

I’ve been thinking about it and I think that since a minor IC is only 12IPCs it might be better to place it on UK1. Britian has a bit more flexability with its starting economy, so it could probably afford to spend the 12 IPC on the IC in Egypt, if it spends the rest of its economy on defense in London

By not using the extra aa units in uk to prepare your defences, you actually are reverting back to alpha 2 defences for sealion.  Actually they are worse because the aa guns don’t get a roll on defence.
4 less infantry =1 ic.  Wich means 4 less 2 s on defence

Agreed.

Also, there is the option of a complex in C. Persia which is more secure and readily reinforced by the Russians from Volgorod if necessary.

@Gargantua:

Made the thread should be retitled.

Light British committment to the Middle East, breaks the game and buffs Italy out.

I’m still supporting a UK1 minor IC buy.

Just stating the fact that it probally wont break the game.

@Gargantua:

Well by the current setup it IS still broken?  Especially if the Allies are winning 9 out of 10 games.  (Which requires a ceratin amount of correct play)

I don’t in good concience see how the Allies can lose.

I think you need to put more threat on Russia.  I have not found it difficult for the axis to win yet.  I have seen some issues I think but they are all player related.

1)  Too much emphasis on warships in the Atlantic
2)  Germany 1 attacks spread way too thin
3)  Germany/Italy not working in concert
4)  Germany not threatening Russia too effectively
5)  Timid Japan in Russia (The Amur issue is a non-starter, just friggin attack already.)
6)  Too much concern over London.

Note:  Berlin, Rome, Paris, St. Petersburg, Stalingrad, Cairo, Moscow, and Warsaw give you victory.  You dont NEED London to win. So why are you bothering with it?  Threaten England enough so they spend a couple rounds building defense giving Italy a break and beat up the Russians.  I think too many players are stuck in the “Gotta do Sea Lion” mindset.

I dont see Russia as that strong.

G4 invade Russia with large stacks in Baltic, E. Poland and Arkhangelsk.
J4 invade Russia with massive forces in Amur and landings in the north.
I4 reinforce German defenses so any attack is a losing proposition for the Russians.

Press in from there.

And yet, I have not had an issue in any game with those three suggestions.

Russia CAN attack, but they will have to do so with a significant portion of their forces and any survivors will be utterly destroyed.

Japan waiting until Round 4 allows them to take out India and China.  Then invade Amur and those pesky 6 Russians can do nothing but flee for their lives.

Italy can do both, hit Africa AND send a moderate force to reinforce the Germans or take a forward position and allow German planes to land.

Italy only needs 15 IPC to open a forward landing base for the Germans.  You are REALLY over estimating what Italy needs.  And for the record, they start with plenty of units to cover that investment. (3 Infantry, 1 armor, gives them 3 Infantry to lose taking E. Poland, Belarus and Bryansk. For example.  That leaves them an armor to “take” the land and allow 11 German aircraft to land.)

Russia CAN hit one of the German stacks, but not well enough to prevent a counter attack from destroying them.  We’re talking pretty early in the game, not a Russia that got a few rounds of European territories because Germany hit England, we’re talking a strong incursion in three major areas.  Say (for argument’s sake) 10 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 4 Armor, AA Gun.  That forces the Russians to use both of their starting Armor and all three planes.  Sure they will probably win, but with 30 German units in position to counter attack either E. Poland or Baltic States, it’s not a great position for the Russians.  THey could hit Arkhangelsk and probably survive with a few units, ASSUMING, they had enough in Novgorod to begin wiht. (They probably did not.  However, the German incursion there is much smaller, perhaps only 6 Infantry, 3 ARmor, AA Gun requiring 4 transports.)

The idea is to give Russia too much to handle before they are ready.

A Japanese invasion would most likely hit Novosibirsk, Amur, Siberia, Soviet Far East, Timguska, Kazahk and anything that might be blitzable.  Yes, Russia gets 6 useless easily killed Infantry in Mongolia, but really?  That’s the biggest f’ing nerf the allies had, now they cannot get 2 free tanks or 4 free infantry IN POSITION to do some good.

Gargantua - let’s play. I’ll show you exactly how Germany and Italy can beat Russia. I didn’t say will - there are too many variables in the game.

Maybe you’ve noticed that playtesters the world 'round have not come to the same conclusions you have? Maybe… just maybe… you haven’t played against opponents capable of giving Russia a run for their money?

Look back a few threads (German Opening) at my plan for Barbarossa, and tell me in as much detail how you’d counter it, if you’re not willing to play me.

Like it or not, this game is pretty balanced.

I’m in! And thanks.

I’ll start a game later tonight - wife and daughter just came home. We’re going to a wedding tomorrow (Infrastucture from the Harris site and this site - his time came!), so I won’t have much time til Sunday and thereafter.

It’ll be good for me to get a different perspective, and see different Russia play.

@Stalingradski:

Gargantua - let’s play. I’ll show you exactly how Germany and Italy can beat Russia. I didn’t say will - there are too many variables in the game.

Maybe you’ve noticed that playtesters the world 'round have not come to the same conclusions you have? Maybe… just maybe… you haven’t played against opponents capable of giving Russia a run for their money?

Look back a few threads (German Opening) at my plan for Barbarossa, and tell me in as much detail how you’d counter it, if you’re not willing to play me.

Like it or not, this game is pretty balanced.

What playtesters are you talking about? We are the playtesters.

@Kobu:

@Stalingradski:

Gargantua - let’s play. I’ll show you exactly how Germany and Italy can beat Russia. I didn’t say will - there are too many variables in the game.

Maybe you’ve noticed that playtesters the world 'round have not come to the same conclusions you have? Maybe… just maybe… you haven’t played against opponents capable of giving Russia a run for their money?

Look back a few threads (German Opening) at my plan for Barbarossa, and tell me in as much detail how you’d counter it, if you’re not willing to play me.

Like it or not, this game is pretty balanced.

What playtesters are you talking about? We are the playtesters.

I think he is talking about Larry’s friends who play with him over a table.

Kobu - fair enough point, but I think there’s more than the eight or so people who regularly troll these sites playtesting…  :)

Thousands of people own and play the game, and most of them aren’t here.